PDA

View Full Version : Judge's Ruling Against Sex-Ed Program Grabs National Eye



Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 04:27
Judge's Ruling Against Sex-Ed Program Grabs National Eye
Monday, May 09, 2005
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos




Bush Budget Fuels Debate Over Sex Ed
WASHINGTON — A judge's order on Thursday evening to halt a new public school sex-education curriculum in the affluent suburbs of Washington, D.C., could have significant ramifications throughout the rest of the country.

A group of parents took their opposition to the sex-ed courses to court last week, arguing that they depicted homosexuality as a natural and morally correct lifestyle and did not offer any contrary opinion.

"This has national significance because Montgomery County is a wealthy, influential school district and the lid has been ripped off an agenda that has crept into schools nationwide," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute (search), an affiliate of the conservative organization Concerned Women for America.

"This shows that parents, even in a very liberal area, can fight back and win," Knight added, noting that he knew of no other case in the country where a sex-ed program has been restrained by a federal judge.

But others say U.S District Judge Alexander Williams Jr.'s decision to grant a temporary restraining order against the Montgomery County Public Schools' pilot sex-ed program for 8th- and 10th-graders is a blow to efforts to give students access to a broad, fact-based health curriculum.

Opponents blame a minority of conservative voices for imposing their views on the majority of parents across the county — and the nation.

"The thing that concerns us is there is a situation where there is widespread support across the country for accurate, age-appropriate health education," said Eliza Byard (search), deputy director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

"It seems that a small number of dissenters in Montgomery County had access to the levers of power to disrupt the process that was initiated by a citizens' advisory committee," Byard said, arguing that the "small number" succeeded in overturning the majority's desires. "It does seem … some very basic underpinnings of our American pluralism is at stake."

This local case highlights an ongoing national debate over modern sex-ed programs that has become more pronounced in recent years as the lines between competing liberal and conservative forces have seemingly become more polarized and have demanded equal time in the nation's schools. The issues typically revolve around funding and teaching about homosexuality, condom use, abstinence and pre-marital sex.

The Montgomery County lawsuit was brought by two groups: Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, a parent-based organization that was formed in direct response to the new curriculum, and Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays (PFOX), a national group that believes that homosexuality is a "decision," not an innate characteristic of some individuals.

Judge Williams said in his 23-page memorandum that based on the evidence presented to him, the curriculum, developed by a citizens' advisory committee last year, posed a potential "chipping away at plaintiff's First Amendment (search) freedoms."

His arguments centered on resource material for teachers that discusses the moral debate over homosexuality, defining gay-friendly and anti-gay churches and discerning between myth and fact about the homosexual lifestyle based on differing belief systems.

"The revised curriculum presents only one view on the subject — that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle — to the exclusion of other perspectives," said Williams, a Clinton administration appointee.

He added that he did not know why the school system felt it necessary to "bound into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge." He was also disturbed about one of the resource materials that implied that the Baptist Church's views against homosexuality are theologically flawed, and that the church once expressed the same intolerance toward African-Americans during the era of slavery.

Jerry D. Weast, superintendent of Montgomery County Schools, called a halt to the pilot program, which was to commence on Monday, until further review.

He also said that a new videotape slated for the sex-ed classes, "Protect Yourself," which parents' groups said included a misleading and gratuitous condom-use instruction on a cucumber, will also be suspended.

David Fishback, chair of the citizens advisory committee, responded Thursday on the blog sponsored by TeachtheFacts.org, a Montgomery County group that grew in opposition to groups like Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and PFOX. He suggested that the board's defense was rushed, the judge's decision was based on resource materials — not classroom lesson plans — and anticipated that an appeal is in order.

"Fortunately, our legal system will enable the board to fully respond and demonstrate that the curriculum, which essentially does nothing more than state basic facts about sexual orientation as understood by every mainstream American medical and mental health professional association, does not violate the Constitution's wise mandate to separate church and state," he said.

"I think it was a rushed decision and hopefully in time will be corrected," said Christine Grewell, the mother of a teenager in the Montgomery County school system and a member of TeachtheFacts.org.

She called the opposition marginal in the scope of parents in the county — and across the country — who want their children to have access to a balanced, informative sex-ed curriculum. She added that students should feel comfortable asking questions and getting answers beyond what their churches or conservative family life may allow.

"To be honest, high school kids have a 'bogus radar' and if you lie to them, if you are less than honest with them, they are going to read right through you, most of them, and they won't trust you," said Grewell, who counts herself as one of hundreds of soccer moms and dads who have joined the cause.

She said the new curriculum addressed a lack of sex education in the county schools about different sexual lifestyles or "sexual variations," like male homosexuality and lesbianism, as well as condom use.

"That's what this new curriculum does. There are some definitions, some myths and stereotypes explored. For someone to say that's indoctrination, it's ridiculous," Grewell said.

On the other hand, Ellen Castlellano, a mother of seven in the Montgomery School system, also considers herself a soccer mom, and says she is tired of the other side casting critics like herself as right-wing nuts. She said her group, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, has purposefully remained "moderate," and seeks what most parents in the country want — neutrality.

"My mantra has been we can define sexual variations, not defend them, that's all they can really do. It's a way too hot issue to do anything beyond that," she said. "And the judge, he said really clearly that [the county] had gone beyond just a definition, they were promoting it and tilting clearly towards one side.

Well this should be fun .

LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155867,00.html)

Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 04:43
I think there's another thread bouncing around about this. Anyway, I didn't realize until this evening that there's a really ironic twist in this. The liberals that wrote the agenda in Montgomery county overstepped their bounds when they tried to say there's good religion (Unitarians) and bad religion (baptists) using each as specific examples. They also claim there's good passages to the bible, and bad ones.

Result? The judge agreed to put the injuction in... wait for it... because It violated the clause of separation of church and state He ruled that the program amounted to government endorsement of religion and that the school board's sex education program couldn't make any rulings on the validity of one religion, or one biblical passage over another. I just love the irony.

ICantSpellDawg
05-10-2005, 05:10
this is a very interesting article and i will stay on top of it

Phatose
05-10-2005, 05:12
Not enough information to say if he was right or not.

Is this a preliminary injunction or what? If it is, the decision isn't too suprising, since as far I as I know a lesser criteria is used then in actual court decisions.

The "No alternative viewpoints" is, as always, ridiculous. I think I'll wait til I have kids and they're in first grade, then sue the school the first test they fail for not teaching the 'alternative viewpoint' that 2+2=5.

Papewaio
05-10-2005, 05:25
... i will stay on top of it

Okay if you must. ~:eek: ~D

Kanamori
05-10-2005, 14:01
Well, at least they weren't trying to teach them to have NO morals (as a certain type of argument tends to go) ~;)

Ja'chyra
05-10-2005, 14:18
I didn't read it all so I won't comment but:


Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays (PFOX)

Some people need to get a hobby. :dizzy2:

ICantSpellDawg
05-10-2005, 15:08
I didn't read it all so I won't comment but:



Some people need to get a hobby. :dizzy2:


i read that site and it was a different perspective
maybe that is their hobby

most likely is is a better and more practical hobby than baseball or model ship building

LittleGrizzly
05-10-2005, 16:31
Result? The judge agreed to put the injuction in... wait for it... because It violated the clause of separation of church and state He ruled that the program amounted to government endorsement of religion and that the school board's sex education program couldn't make any rulings on the validity of one religion, or one biblical passage over another. I just love the irony.

lol thats great

Goofball
05-10-2005, 18:02
Both groups are in the wrong on this one.

The left are wrong because they overstepped the bounds (if the article is accurate) by trying to bring morality into a sex-ed class. To my mind, sex-ed class is really just another science class, and should stay away from morality. Hence, they should not be trying to teach that homosexuality is "morally correct." They should simply be giving children the clinical facts about different sexual practices, the pitfalls/dangers inherent therein, and how to best protect themselves no matter which type of practice they eventually engage in. And yes, for the record, I believe abstinence should be discussed and taught as an option for kids. It just shouldn't be discussed as the only option, or the morally superior option.

On the other hand, the conservatives are also wrong if they are trying (as it seems from the article, which was a little vague) to have sex-ed teachers tell (or even insinuate) to the students that homosexuality is somehow abnormal or morally corrupt, or to have all discussion of homosexuality as a sexual preference deleted from the curriculum. As I said, morality has no place in a sex-ed class. Teens are already in a very confused and vulnerable state with respect to their sexuality. The last thing they need is a teacher telling them that those strange feelings they get when they see the other boys naked in the locker room are evil or dirty. Teen suicide rates are high enough as it is.

Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 18:09
I agree with Goofy on this one. Morality is for religion class (if you're going to a religious school). I suppose you could discuss ethics, but s far as I know, there's nothing unethical about homosexuality outside of a religious framework.

You gotta admit though, having the Left get slapped for endorsing 'tolerant' religions and disavowing 'intolerant' ones, and favoring some bible passages over others... that was just precious. ~:)

DemonArchangel
05-10-2005, 19:54
What is blatantly obvious: Maryland is one of the most liberal places in America. This isn't a conservative backlash against sex-ed. I could probably count the conservatives in Montgomery County on one hand and still have fingers left over.

What happened: Some idiot went and got religion into the classroom, which probably ended up insulting the religions sensibilities of someone.

The debate: What debate? If the judge disallowed the sex-ed program on a moral point such as "Homosexuality Sucks", there would be debate, but there's nothing to debate here, I'm all for keeping religion out of the classroom .

Steppe Merc
05-11-2005, 00:52
Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays (PFOX)
Ex gays? ~:confused:

ICantSpellDawg
05-11-2005, 01:27
Ex gays? ~:confused:

you have never heard of ex-gays?
then you obviously dont believe that homosexuality is, for the most part, a choice